CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
Two random thoughts/rants:
-
That loss would be easier to stomach if the count back rule was "who finished the round robin as the highest ranked team". Boundaries/wickets/"the number of spanners in a sidchrome tool kit" is just annoying...
-
There's something jarring about reading press commentary of England being 'deserved winners of the final'. The Cup maybe, but 241 & 15 playing 241 and 15 suggests no standout winners on the day....
I sense I'm going to be (even) grumpier than usual for a very long time...
-
-
@rotated said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@mariner4life said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
well, shit aye.
I'm actually not sure how to feel. We can't even fall back on being beaten by a better side on the day. Because we weren't beaten.
Get my rant in. What fuckwit came up with most boundaries as the 2nd tie-breaker? Effectively England have been handed the cup for having less scoring shots than us? In what way is that a good measurement? Get absolutely fucked. I am not having that. Celebrate you pommy (UN) fucks, we all know it feels hollow.
Two bad pieces of luck in the last couple of overs. But that overthrow 6 is about as unlucky as you can possibly get. Right there you know it is not your day. Fucking hell.
I thought we were 30 runs short, turns out we were one. Imagine if we didn't duck under the last ball of the innings?
This is about where I'm at with it too. Although in a way I feel bad for both sides as England will always have a bit of asterix on the title and the lack of closure will likely torment NZ more than a loss. I'm not entirely sure I would be that much happier if NZ had "won" on an equally ridiculous countback.
The NZ team can be very proud, they played great cricket and did not wilt under the pressure and in the last two games added more to the lore of NZ cricket history than other teams did in an entire four year cycle. I juts hope for the Black Caps that in time the absurdity and incredible nature of the result or lack thereof a little easier to swallow.
On the bright side I look forward to Kane on commentary at the 2039 CWC semi final talking about this game at length...
I have nothing against Morgan, but his post game interview was more an interview of a team that had a conventional win not an outcome that went like that.
-
@Donsteppa yes the triumphalism by some of the English press is hard to stomach.
It's a shit way to decide a match. I'm sure I'd feel the same way if the situation was reversed. The rule will quietly be changed before the next CWC. Should have had another Super Over. Plenty of soccer finals decided on penalties but if it's all square after 5 they keep going. They don't award it to the team with the most headers!!!
Not made any easier by an article on cricinfo suggesting overthrow 6 should only have been 5 as the second run shouldn't count because batsmen hadn't crossed when the ball left the fielders hand.
Feel for the Caps. Immense effort. Playing away. Never gave up. Were the marginally better team on the day with everything stacked against them It must hurt so bad..
-
I've spent the 4 hours or so thinking we lost by 1 run in the super over, slightly zen that we didn't force the match/tournament to be decided by a horseshit boundary countback. Just realised the truth when talking to someone at work .... Jesus H Christ, what a stupid way to decide the tournament.
I actually had the cricinfo scorecard still open on my phone. So when I woke up, I mentally prepared myself for defeat before the checking to avoid any false hopes.
As my phone was still on the live scorecard, I saw no headlines, just the final score. I thought, "wholly fuck, we've won, 8-down beats all out" scrolled down a bit further to confirm. Stokes man-of-the-match, confused, then I see there is a super over. Ah, OK. Then see the last line of live commentary seeing we were run out 1 short, and something about the boundaries countback, I thought Guptill was 1 metre away from making the tournament a debacle ....., and thought of the 1995 RWC final and by the last five minutes I was ok with NZ losing rather than potting another droppie and winning by the unstatisfying red-card tiebreaker, and how by 16 years later I would have bitten your hand off if you offered be a 1995 RWC win by way of a Dalton red card in pool play ......
What a roller coaster for someone who went to be in the 22nd over of the first innings .....
-
@dogmeat said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Donsteppa yes the triumphalism by some of the English press is hard to stomach.
It's a shit way to decide a match. I'm sure I'd feel the same way if the situation was reversed. The rule will quietly be changed before the next CWC. Should have had another Super Over. Plenty of soccer finals decided on penalties but if it's all square after 5 they keep going. They don't award it to the team with the most headers!!!
Not made any easier by an article on cricinfo suggesting overthrow 6 should only have been 5 as the second run shouldn't count because batsmen hadn't crossed when the ball left the fielders hand.
Feel for the Caps. Immense effort. Playing away. Never gave up. Were the marginally better team on the day with everything stacked against them It must hurt so bad..
Moral victory right there.
-
"luck is really the only reason Williamson and New Zealand are not world champions right now. Because, if it isn't luck that a little white leather globe no more than nine inches in circumference thrown from the deep midwicket boundary 60 to 70 metres away hits a moving piece of willow that may be no more than 38 inches in length and no more than 4.25 inches wide held by a human being diving to the ground and deflects off it, with enough speed, to an area of the field that is not patrolled by one of 11 men and goes for four, then what really is luck? And if it turns out that it should've been five runs instead of six because one umpire interpreted a rule concerning precisely such acts incorrectly? What is it?"
What the luck! New Zealand, and the randomness of life (or a World Cup final)
The way the World Cup final ended highlighted the deep sense of New Zealand's loss and the cruelty of it all
-
cricket has always been an evil fluffybunny of a game
-
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Warning: sour grapes time:
England did not win this world cup, it was awarded to them. That's my response from now on whenever some fluffybunny says England won the 2019 CWC.
Nah, they won.
Best alternative. Another super over (until a clear winnier)
Second best alternative: Higher positioning in the round-robin.
Third best alternative: Winner of the round-robing meeting.There were sensible ways to award England the tournament - if the organisers are not prepared to go to more super overs for TV scheduling reasons.
But it's just like the ICC forgot that the tournament had been re-structured like the 1992 version of everyone plays everyone - so came up with a bizzaare way to break the tie. Which might have made sense if their were pools, (and if you like boundaries and the rest of cricket is the boring bits between fours and sixes).
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Warning: sour grapes time:
England did not win this world cup, it was awarded to them. That's my response from now on whenever some fluffybunny says England won the 2019 CWC.
They won the Cricket World Cup but didn't win the Cricket World Cup final. The ultimate pub quiz question.
-
The law states: "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act." The crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.
Should England have got five, and not six, for overthrows?
The laws raise the question as to whether England were awarded one run too many with Stokes and Rashid having not crossed when the throw was released
-
@junior said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Chris-B sadly history will just remember the name engraved on the trophy 😔
We will be failing in our duties as fans if that is the case.
For some reason I can't recall the actual scoreline of the 1981 Benson and Hedges World Series Cup. Did Australia win 3-1?
However, as I dandle my great-grandchildren on my knee, I will surely tell them how the heinous traitor Ben Stokes purposefully swiped an outfield throw to the boundary to rob St. Kane of his rightful victory!
I may feel differently tomorrow, but right now I'm not in the slightest gutted that we're not getting our name engraved on a little Cup. It's the stuff of legends!
-
@Chris-B said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@junior said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Chris-B sadly history will just remember the name engraved on the trophy 😔
We will be failing in our duties as fans if that is the case.
For some reason I can't recall the actual scoreline of the 1981 Benson and Hedges World Series Cup. Did Australia win 3-1?
However, as I dandle my great-grandchildren on my knee, I will surely tell them how the heinous traitor Ben Stokes purposefully swiped an outfield throw to the boundary to rob St. Kane of his rightful victory!
I may feel differently tomorrow, but right now I'm not in the slightest gutted that we're not getting our name engraved on a little Cup. It's the stuff of legends!
It's a "moral victory" double banger if Stokes deflected the ball and the umpires stuffed up to award an extra run. Move aside Suzie .....
-
@Rapido said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Warning: sour grapes time:
England did not win this world cup, it was awarded to them. That's my response from now on whenever some fluffybunny says England won the 2019 CWC.
Nah, they won.
Best alternative. Another super over (until a clear winnier)
Second best alternative: Higher positioning in the round-robin.
Third best alternative: Winner of the round-robing meeting.There were sensible ways to award England the tournament - if the organisers are not prepared to go to more super overs for TV scheduling reasons.
But it's just like the ICC forgot that the tournament had been re-structured like the 1992 version of everyone plays everyone - so came up with a bizzaare way to break the tie. Which might have made sense if their were pools, (and if you like boundaries and the rest of cricket is the boring bits between fours and sixes).
Actually, I'm going to revise this opinion a bit.
If the purpose of the tie-breaker is to decide a way to separate who was the best in the final rather than who was the best in the tournament, then it should have been by wickets lost (like it used to be).
So after the super-overs are exhausted, then the best way to count-back in the final was by wickets lost.
We woz actually robbed after all.
-
I thought I did everything right. I fell asleep on the couch after the first innings. Recorded it and watched it in the morning expecting a win because I slept through it.
I am telling my Great Grandkids that David Warner sprinted on in the super over and bowled the final ball underarm.
Man I am hurting.
